Sedikit menanggapi.
Menurut hemat saya harus dibedakan pula gagasan welfare state dengan praksis
welfare-state. Jika merujuk pola Keynes di era 1930-an dulu jelas ini manjur
dan penting, namun ketika ini dilanjutkan tanpa modifikasi dan adaptasi, yang
dihasilkan adalah ambang kebangkrutan. Akan tetapi sekali lagi bukan pada
gagasannya melainkan praksisnya. Welfare-state menurut saya masih relevan dg
memodifikasi sisi praksisnya. Jika kita menimbang gagasan neoliberalisme, suka
tidak suka kita melirik welfare-state, mengapa, karena melihat sejarahnya. Karl
Polanyi mengatakan bahwa kapitalisme (dan neoliberalisme tidak alamiah) maka
kita bisa menolaknya. Dalam benak saya welfare-state yg ditopang demokrasi
sosial (bukan birokrasi lamban) bisa menjadi solusi yg baik. Stiglitz dlm buku
Making Globalization Work (2006) secara tak langsung melirik ini. Uraian dan
kritik ttg neoliberalisme serta solusi melalui welfare state diulas melalui
analisis foucaultian dg sangat bagus dalam buku Education
Policy (Ollsen, Neill, 2004).
Akan saya kirimkan berikutnya pokok2 gagasan mereka dlm bingkai epistemologi
foucaultian ini, menyusul, maklum waktu tak memungkinkan.
salam,
Pras
qusthan_abqary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ada yang mau menanggapi tulisan di bawah ini?
On Welfare State: A Comment to Sulastomo
Oleh :QUSTHAN ABQARY
Welfare state as an issue is so sexy and classic. Sexy because it
promises prosperity guarantee to all people especially the poor. So
they get a big passion to claim their right. On the other hand, it
sounds classical because always promised welfare but not solve or
reduce any social problems such as poverty.
Sulastomo as such, in his "Pillar of Welfare State" (KOMPAS 15/1)
recommended reform management of social security program to solve some
social problems. He believes that the origin of our state is welfare
state's form. It is such a fatal misinterpretation.
Welfare state or United State ?
Sulastomo did overgeneralization or fallacy of dramatic instance. He
equalized between welfare state as an idea and welfare (without
`state') as an ideality. In fact, welfare state is not identical with
welfare as an ideality.
As we know together that welfare ideality which written in preface and
torso of UUD 1945 did not mean (textually event contextually) to the
form of welfare state. It just a promised to all people of Indonesia
by their government. So, Government of Republic Indonesia has to
guarantee the prosperity of their citizens.
But it is not flange to welfare state as an idea or even one kind form
of state management. I am tickled by opinion which say that the best
form or the most closing form to Indonesia is welfare state. It is so
skin-deep or banal, if you like it.
Our founding fathers have said that our form is united state (NKRI).
And its final destination is social justice for all citizens of
Indonesia (Pancasila's principle of 5). Social justice, in the sense
of scholastic philosophy, has an object material which calls wealth.
We can connotatively interpretate it to become welfare. In short,
wealth has the same meaning with welfare, especially in the frame of
contemporary political philosophy—after John Rawls.
By this tight-fisted description we can see obviously how to make some
differentiation between welfare state as an idea with welfare as an
ideality. So, we should explore more deeper to welfare state.
Welfare State which Paralyse
Welfare state in its traditional or modern form still has some
weakness. In its traditional form, welfare state emerge high burden on
state budget. On the other hand, modern form of this idea is fail to
solve some classic problem—unemployment and poverty as such.
Since oil crisis in decade of 1970's, some countries which implemented
welfare state did some change. Its change move forward from
traditional to modern form of welfare state. England as such, in the
regime of Thatcher did some privatization to British Airways, British
Gas, and British Rail (at the same time). On the other hand, Germany
by Kohl's regime did privatization to Veba, VW, VIAG (one by one).
In Liberal sense of critique, some people would like to said that
welfare state abandon individual responsibility to his or her life and
family as the consequences of historical personal preferences and
degradate self-respect to the poor.
More extremely, in Libertarian sense of critique, every person who
lazy has to accept the risk of his past laziness. And the state does
not have to subsidize him by taxing people. So do other people do not
responsible for his laziness in the past and present by pay a lot of
tax or charity. The right of life interpretate minimally just as the
right not to be murdered.
In my objection that two argument was very cruel and just let the root
of this social problem still grow. To cut off this root, we should
emphasize how important work it is. Of course, work is not just formal
activity in the office but the whole activity which earn something. In
this sense, communication is one form of work which produce
satisfaction by each person whom do it.
In this passion, government must provide work-field and each person
should be creative. We have to do some champaign against cliche:
searching work but creating work to the other. Without improving work
consciousness, the lazy will become much lazier and the poor will
become much poorer. Welfare state does not decrease poornes number but
exactly on the contrary.
Sulastomo did a fatal misinterpretation of the preface and torso of
UUD 1945 and we have to fix it. He did not separate between ideality
and tactical form of the state. The Government of Republic of
Indonesia and its citizens should work hard to reach welfare but not
by adopt welfare state. We still united state (NKRI). Welfare state,
unconsciously, paralysing individual's autonomy for the sake of a
reason which embodied as so called commodity: welfare. Do we should
adopt this idea which take big impact in the future? I do not think so.
Qusthan Abqary, Student in Department of Philosophy, University of
Gadjah Mada , Yogyakarta . He can be reach at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Source:
http://www.hminews.com/index.php?action=news.detail&id_news=496&judul=On%20Welfare%20State:%20A%20Comment%20to%20Sulastomo
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
